Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2024/02/29
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![31 File:Rodrigo Alves ("Human Ken Doll").jpg](#File:Rodrigo_Alves_("Human_Ken_Doll").jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![199 File:Карта "Габрэйская Гародня".jpg](#File:Карта_"Габрэйская_Гародня".jpg){kind=link}
![200 File:Евгений Асноревский. Интерьерный постер "Караткевiч".jpg](#File:Евгений_Асноревский._Интерьерный_постер_"Караткевiч".jpg){kind=link}
![201 File:Евгений Асноревский. Постер "DNA".jpg](#File:Евгений_Асноревский._Постер_"DNA".jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
Es viejo Dfvm2424 (talk) 00:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Comment That is not a reason to delete. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: very prompt uploader request IS a reason for deletion (even if the stated reason is nonsense). --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Secondarywaltz as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Source is © Team Locals 2011-2013 ColonialGrid (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Although the source is certainly all right reserved copyright, and the licence is undoubtedly wrong, this file may not be a copyvio (although it may have misidentified the subject). A lower resolution version can be found at http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2015/march/10/150310-second-sea-lord-supersession, and the copyright info for www.royalnavy.mod.uk states that "www.royalnavy.mod.uk is published under the Open Government Licence, and you can reproduce information from the site as long as you obey the terms of that licence. / The material featured on this website is subject to Crown copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. Read the Crown copyright page for more information." This is supported by the EXIF which states "©UK MOD CROWN COPYRIGHT, 2015", which seems compliant with OGL Crown Copyright. So I think this may be ok to keep, but obviously needs a clean up of the sourcing and licencing information. ColonialGrid (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- The file name says Admiral Jonathan Woodcock. It should be Admiral Sir David Steel. If the file stays, the file name should be changed. Cheers Ikatemag (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Resolved Basvb (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
this file is named by the wrong person, it should not be Jonathan Woodcock but David Steel Ikatemag (talk) 11:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Look at the previous. Ask name change. Keep Speedily, wrong request. 186.173.21.235 12:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Kept per anon. 186.173.21.235 12:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
RohanDevrukhkar.jpg Vaishustamhane (talk) 12:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy deletion as a copyvio. --Rosenzweig τ 13:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license (User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag) Smartcom5 (Any thoughts?) 01:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Forgot to add the license-header (or to be quite frank; my mouse wheel slipped and selected nothin … -.-). Anyway, added the license-header immediately afterwards, though the bot was quicker! Smartcom5 (Any thoughts?) 01:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Kept: license tag was added. --Rosenzweig τ 13:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Urgently Delete Vaishustamhane (talk) 12:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Speedy deletion as a copyvio (was in use at simple:Ritika Shrotri). --Rosenzweig τ 13:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Source file was deleted due to license laundering. This image should have been deleted as well. – Pbrks (t • c) 01:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination, crop of already deleted. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
Out of scope * Pppery * it has begun... 01:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Please delete, the creation was my error. Grimes2 (talk) 11:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Don't worry, we will. 186.173.4.132 11:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, uploader concurs with deletion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
The picture was taken from the company's website.[1] Luurankosoturi (talk) 10:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
The picture was taken from the company's website.[2] Luurankosoturi (talk) 10:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
The picture was taken from the company's website.[3] Luurankosoturi (talk) 10:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Infrogmation. --Rosenzweig τ 17:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
mispelled redirect Travels&Treks (talk) 14:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, was uploaded yesterday. --Achim55 (talk) 20:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
This photo was published in Canada, not the USA. The photographer's name is known, but her/his date of death is not. This photo lacks proof that the photographer has been dead for 70 years. Motacilla (talk) 21:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Well you see this photo was taken in the 1899 and if we don’t know if he died but It’s most likely to assume he’s been dead for 70 years because if he died pre 1953 it would be over 70 years An ocean liner fan234 (talk) 23:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy deleted as uploader has repeatedly failed to provide relevant source info. --Bedivere (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Personal photo by non-contributors. メイド理世 (talk) 14:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Speedy delete F10 Seawolf35 (talk) 14:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Pi.1415926535. --Rosenzweig τ 08:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
SVG of image drawn & uploaded from my file on Commons without my permission Rourib.2004 (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Kept: bad version already deleted and redirected. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
This redirect is not required. The copied file has already got deleted, and the original file stands "kept" in Commons. Rourib.2004 (talk) 17:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: already deletd by Túrelio. --Rosenzweig τ 08:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Cropped badly Everybodyyy (talk) 17:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 08:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Wrong Upload QW2d (talk) 18:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 08:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Eurovision Song Contest logos are non-free in the country of origin, Switzerland, see COM:TOO. Kirilloparma (talk) 17:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Agree with previous argument Yoyo360 (talk) 21:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ocakabosco (talk · contribs)
[edit]Possible copyvio, advertising, out of scope, hits all the points to be deleted.
- File:Lubangalapitkic.jpg
- File:OCAKA BOSCO KING FOR VULNERABLE IN THE WORLD.jpg
- File:Ocaka bosco.jpg
- File:Ocaka bosco.png
Seawolf35 (talk) 19:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD F10 with other uploads. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Microchip08 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: The United Kingdom gives limited copyright to computer-generated works so this might be more suited for upload to English Wikipedia rather than Commons. Di (they-them) (talk) 21:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
-20240229214500-File:Enchanting-entertainment.png){kind=link}
- I changed this to a regular deletion request as I don't think this qualifies for speedy deletion. Di (they-them) (talk) 21:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment While this was made in the UK, does this have a copyright notice? If so, who owns the copyright? What was used to make it?
- AuroraANovaUma (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- I assume this is DALL·E 3
- AuroraANovaUma (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Copyright in the UK (as in most other countries nowadays, including the US) is automatic upon creation of the work, no copyright notice needed. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- and who owns the copyright of the work? the generator, the ai, the creators of the ai, or the government? AuroraANovaUma (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- See below, per UK law the "person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken", which I interpret as the prompter. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- and who owns the copyright of the work? the generator, the ai, the creators of the ai, or the government? AuroraANovaUma (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Copyright in the UK (as in most other countries nowadays, including the US) is automatic upon creation of the work, no copyright notice needed. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment COM:INUSE here, here, and here. RodRabelo7 (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Delete One of the few examples of a notable, appropriately COM:INUSE AI-generated image (one of the AI-generated advertisements used for en:Willy's Chocolate Experience); but unfortunately, it's probably a copyright violation because it was made in the United Kingdom and the UK, unlike most other countries, grants copyright protection to AI-generated works. English-language Wikipedia can probably host it under fair use. Gestumblindi (talk) 13:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Where is the creation location? If this was created by a UK-based user on a system hosted in the US/by a US company, is it a British or American image? The author is, under UK law, "the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken" - is that the UK-based House of Illuminati (who made the arrangement by typing the prompt), or is it OpenAI/Microsoft/whoever (who made the arrangement by training the AI)? Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- In the context of AI-generated work, I would interpret the UK's "person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken" as the prompter, that is, the person that enters the prompt for the AI to generate the work according to their wishes. In this case, that would probably be Billy Coull, the UK-based person who, according to media reports, seemed to run the company "House of Illuminati" as an one-man business. - Those who trained the AI are, as I see it, comparable to people who programmed an application that is then used to create a work, like Microsoft programmers who wrote Word, or Adobe programmers for Illustrator and Photoshop. But that's only my interpretation, of course. No court cases that could be cited yet, I assume... Gestumblindi (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - this is a UK work. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
This is a Ai enhanced image and is not supported on the English wikipedia article. KhantWiki (talk) 18:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Yann. --Rosenzweig τ 07:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- File:Hendricks-grand-cabaret-gin.jpg
- File:Hendricks Flora Adora Gin.jpg
- File:Hendricks Lunar Gin.jpg
- File:Hendricks Absinthe.jpg
- File:Hendricks Neptunia Gin.jpg
- File:Hendricks Amazonia Gin.jpg
- File:Hendricks Midsummer Solstice Gin.jpg
- File:Hendricks Orbium Gin.jpg
- File:Hendricks Original.jpg
reppoptalk 01:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope low quality personal artwork from a Flickr mass import The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete per @The Squirrel Conspiracy. Ooligan (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The Squirrel Conspiracy, this image wasn’t part of a Flickr mass import as far as I can tell. A1Cafel deliberately decided to upload this single file. See their uploads here. RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Online multiple places years before Commons upload, including [4] from 2014 Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Josebusttamante (talk · contribs)
[edit]no educational value, self-promotional and not used in any article
Goldsztern ✶ 02:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Includes copyrighted image which is too big for COM:DE MINIMIS. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
These are COM:DWs of copyrighted dolls, both the dolls and the image itself, delete per COM:TOYS. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Delete, COM:DW of packaging and doll. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
COM:DW of copyrighted dolls, see COM:TOYS. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Doubt it is their work. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
![03:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2024/02/29#c-Grandmaster_Huon-20240229034900-File:Rodrigo_Alves_("Human_Ken_Doll").jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
![00:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2024/02/29#c-IronGargoyle-20240307005500-File:Rodrigo_Alves_("Human_Ken_Doll").jpg){kind=link}
Delete per COM:TOYS, obvious COM:DW of barbie. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Personal image, no educational purpose. Velma (talk) 10:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope: this appears to just be a printout of ca:Annauir. The PDF printout technically lacks appropriate attribution for the text and images; it's also simply redundant to the wiki page. Omphalographer (talk) 20:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope: plain text. Omphalographer (talk) 20:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by seeming company rep, no use and out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
copyright violation, not an own work, came from https://fr.apanews.net/politiques/tchad-lopposant-yaya-dillo-somme-de-liberer-son-domicile/ PizzaKing13 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
copyright violation: no permission by author of text; no freedom of panorama. Martin Sg. (talk) 22:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
copyright violation; contemporary artworks; no freedom of panorama. Martin Sg. (talk) 22:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
TinEye dates this retail-looking image to online shopping sites from 2008, a year before the upload here. User made no other uploads. Belbury (talk) 10:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Another sub-standard image by Bull-Doser, now indef banned by the English and French Wikipedia. It's a photo of the back of her head. Shawn à Montréal (talk) 14:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Andy Dingley (talk) 14:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. To hell with Wikipedias and their polices (or policies). Only photo of hers. 186.173.196.31 16:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- How does this photo meet SCOPE? It's literally a photo of the back of her head. How does that meet any sort of educational purpose to illustrate any biographical article? It's not as if it's good enough to use for an article on anatomy or hairdressing either. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Right and am I to understand that the Commons does not have any minimum requirements to !vote in a deletion discussion? Because this IP popped up yesterday to a) register this comment and b) attempt to remove someone's delete !vote in another discussion. Shawn à Montréal (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- We don't need them. This isn't a vote, it's a rational discussion wherein the convincing arguments put forward by all parties are judged equally and then the now-obvious and correct result can be chosen objectively. Or something like that. But as we work by delegation to admins (who are universally wise and objective) then they won't be swayed by pop-up IP !voters.
- Also their other edit was correct. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Right and am I to understand that the Commons does not have any minimum requirements to !vote in a deletion discussion? Because this IP popped up yesterday to a) register this comment and b) attempt to remove someone's delete !vote in another discussion. Shawn à Montréal (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- How does this photo meet SCOPE? It's literally a photo of the back of her head. How does that meet any sort of educational purpose to illustrate any biographical article? It's not as if it's good enough to use for an article on anatomy or hairdressing either. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, per COM:SCOPE, coherently with Commons:Deletion requests/File:Patrice L'Écuyer dans le tapis rouge du Gala Artis 2015.jpg. The photo was taken ¾ back; person is not identifiable. We have over one thousand of pictures of human female head. This one adds nothing to the collection we already own. --Webfil (talk) 19:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - As per above. Of no use in identifying or representing the subject (i.e. the intended purpose) and we don't need another photo of the back of someone's head. Ubcule (talk) 22:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete scope. — Rhododendrites talk | 15:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete useless -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 08:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Poor quality 'grabbed' photo of a notable subject.
See long past discussions regarding this uploader and a current thread at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Bull-Doser.
The subject is notable, the quality of the photo is terrible. To the point that although INUSE on Wikidata and the only image we have, it's ignored by Wikipedia in the article on this person: fr:Jean-Michel Anctil. This image is too bad, and too apparently invasive, to justify itself for any encyclopedic SCOPE. Images of this quality don't improve anything, they degrade the overall quality and reputation of the project. We don't need anything that conveys an impression of us as "Creepy Lil' Guys". Andy Dingley (talk) 15:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, per COM:SCOPE; not realistically useful for an educational purpose. The photo was taken ¾ back; person is hardly identifiable by facial trait ― could be the guy, a look-alike or even somebody who does not remotely resembles. Context is arguably not favourable in regard of Commons:Country specific consent requirements#Canada : is the person dining at a restaurant or attending an event? Is the event private? In the absence of further information from the uploader, COM:PCP should apply. --Webfil (talk) 20:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - This is awful and- for reasons already mostly covered by Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) and Webfil (talk · contribs)- I'd agree that it's not of usable (and hence acceptable) quality even in the absence of anything better. Ubcule (talk) 22:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I'm less concerned about scope than COM:PEOPLE. — Rhododendrites talk | 15:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
OOS fantasy flag map Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
No such highway. Yann (talk) 15:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
No indication given at makemytrip.com that this file has been released as licensed. It could possibly be {{PD-logo}} per COM:TOO United States, but it's not as clear per COM:TOO India. So, if this cannot be converted to PD, it'S licensing probably needs to be verified by COM:OTRS; if it's licensing cannot be verified or it cannot be converted to PD, it needs to be deleted per COM:PCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Weak keep It is below the threshold of originality in the US. COM:TOO India isn't very helpful, but suggests that the thresholds are similar. That would imply that this is below the TOO in India, too. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --ƏXPLICIT 03:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use and out of scope (previous request was license related, not same rationale) Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Tomica models of trucks
[edit]Delete the entire category and files because the toys are all copyrighted in the US per COM:TOYS.
- File:Nissan Caravan by Tomica.jpg
- File:Tomica bulldozer scale model.jpg
- File:Tomica Toyota Town Ace.jpg
- File:Tomica068 postvan.jpg
- File:Tomica096 stepwgn rp.jpg
- File:Tomy trucking a.jpg
- File:Toy car 20210918 123341.jpg
- File:Toy Mazda Bongo Friendee by Tomica 01.jpg
- File:Toy Mazda Bongo Friendee by Tomica 02.jpg
- File:Toy Mazda Bongo Friendee by Tomica 03.jpg
Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Tomica models of automobiles
[edit]Sorry I had to do that, but they must be deleted per COM:TOYS.
- File:40th anniversary Tomica.jpg
- File:A Junk Tomica.jpg
- File:A Junk TOMICA.jpg
- File:Bottom of a toy Mazda Bongo Friendee by Tomica.jpg
- File:Mercedes-Benz C Class Type by Tomica.jpg
- File:Miniature world.jpg
- File:Nissan Elgrand by Tomica, from behind.jpg
- File:Nissan Elgrand by Tomica.jpg
- File:Nissan Fairlady Z 20210918 185900.jpg
- File:Tomica and Majorette.jpg
- File:Tomica Collection (45611892702).jpg
- File:Tomica Ferrari 2.jpg
- File:Tomica nissan skyline GTR 01.jpg
- File:Tomica nissan skyline GTR 02.jpg
- File:Tomica nissan skyline GTR 04.jpg
- File:Tomica nissan skyline GTR 05.jpg
- File:Tomica nissan skyline GTR 06.jpg
- File:Tomica Testarossa.jpg
- File:Toy Range Rover by Tomica 01.jpg
- File:Toy Range Rover by Tomica 02.jpg
- File:Toy Range Rover by Tomica 03.jpg
- File:Toy Toyota bB (XP30) by Tomica 01.jpg
- File:Toy Toyota bB (XP30) by Tomica 02.jpg
- File:Toy Toyota bB (XP30) by Tomica 03.jpg
- File:Toyota Vitz by Tomica.jpg
- File:Type R Tomica.jpg
- File:パッケージ傷み (39878695890).jpg
- File:ミニカー.jpg
- File:多美車 TOMICA TAKARATOMY タカラトミー.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_by_Tomica_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_by_Tomica_02.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_by_Tomica_03.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Delete per COM:TOYS. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Delete all of them, as they are all made during or after 1968 and are therefore still copyrighted under US law. See COM:TOYS.
- File:'31 Doozie - Hot Wheels - Flickr - dave 7.jpg
- File:1982 Nissan Skyine R30 by Hot Wheels.jpg
- File:Abstract Cars 02.JPG
- File:Abstract Cars 04.JPG
- File:AMC Pacer (14831633432).jpg
- File:AMC Pacer rear (14645281890).jpg
- File:Auburn 852 Hot Wheels - Flickr - dave 7.jpg
- File:Bottom of a toy Mercedes SLK by Hot Wheels.jpg
- File:Buickriviera71-01.jpg
- File:Buickriviera71-02.jpg
- File:DeLorean Hotwheels.jpg
- File:Ferrari 328 (14859830653).jpg
- File:Hot Rod (14642481978).jpg
- File:Hot Rod (14831634352).jpg
- File:Hot Rod (14848962663).jpg
- File:Hot Rod - Hot Wheels - Flickr - dave 7.jpg
- File:Hot Wheels - Aston Martin DB5 1963.JPG
- File:Hot Wheels - Infiniti G37 Coupe (6017398466).jpg
- File:Hot Wheels 1956 Mercury Montclair (4998490590).jpg
- File:Hot Wheels 1967 Plymouth Belvedere GTX (4795641333).jpg
- File:Hot Wheels 1970 Buick GSX (4670471717).jpg
- File:Hot Wheels 1970 Plymouth Cuda (4928529561).jpg
- File:Hot Wheels Celero GT.jpg
- File:Hot Wheels Nissan 370Z.jpg
- File:Hot wheels stuz.jpg
- File:Hot wheels t bucket.jpg
- File:Hot wheels Vector W8.jpg
- File:Hotwheelcar03.jpg
- File:Hotwheels red hot rod.jpg
- File:Hotwheelspeugeot505.JPG
- File:Lotus Esprit - Royal Flash - Hot Wheels - Flickr - dave 7 (1).jpg
- File:Lotus Esprit - Royal Flash - Hot Wheels - Flickr - dave 7.jpg
- File:Mercedes 540K Hot Wheels - Flickr - dave 7.jpg
- File:Nissan 300ZX (14831994115).jpg
- File:Packard (14677765970).jpg
- File:Porsche 911 (14846125784).jpg
- File:Rolls-Royce Phantom II - Hot Wheels - Flickr - dave 7.jpg
- File:Stutz (14861986274).jpg
- File:Uber vs lyft (40834809464).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Delete per COM:TOYS
- File:2001 Hot Wheels car.jpg
- File:2004 Hot Wheels Brutalistic.jpg
- File:2005 Hot Wheels McDonalds car.jpg
- File:Aquaman's Car (Old Version).jpg
- File:Bubble Gunner - Hot Wheels - Flickr - dave 7.jpg
- File:Hot Wheels - Splittin' Image & Mod Quad.jpg
- File:Hot Wheels - The Simpsons Family Car.JPG
- File:Hot Wheels Second Wind 1976.jpg
- File:Hotwheelcar01.jpg
- File:Hotwheels toy story 4 car.jpg
- File:HW FastFortress.jpg
- File:S341 Hyperliner MPV Minivan - USA generic Airport Police (7605613946).jpg
- File:Wonder Woman's Power Pistons Car.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
COM:DW of copyrighted fictional submarine design and accompanying toy version. Per COM:TOYS. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Very likely an excerpt from a copyrighted video. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Yeah, COM:DW of copyrighted doll. See COM:TOYS. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
.jpeg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpeg){kind=link}
Yeah, COM:TOYS, delete.
- File:Hot Wheels (6258994081).jpg
- File:Hot Wheels (6259521208).jpg
- File:Hot Wheels (6259521286).jpg
- File:HotWheelsCustomCurveKicker.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
COM:DW of copyrighted playmobil, delete per COM:TOYS. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Clear COM:DW of copyrighted Toribot design by Akira Toriyama, a near facsimile of his design is not acceptable COM:FANART. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
COM:DW of Scion Xb toy car design that has had enough original changes from mattel to make it copyrighted. Delete per COM:TOYS. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
This map, said to be from 1988, is obviously not "own work" under a CC license. We'd need proper source information to determine its copyright status; else the file should be deleted per the precautionary principle. Rosenzweig τ 07:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Per low-resolution and Facebook-code in metadata some doubts about "own work"-claim. -- Túrelio (talk) 11:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Per description, "photo by Luna Knightley", who is probably not the uploader. VRT permision would be needed to keep this file. Rosenzweig τ 11:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons:What Commons is not#Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons:What Commons is not#Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host. Used in promotional Wikidata item. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons:What Commons is not#Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons:What Commons is not#Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
No longer needed Add925 (talk) 18:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, unclear what the uploader "needed" it for, but it's looks like a copyvio of https://mercercountyoutlook.net/2024/01/14/a-look-backcelinas-very-own-pizza-by-donisi/, the date of that URL being a day before the upload. Belbury (talk) 18:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. It's an old pizza sign which is probably too simple for copyright and definitely displayed in public without a copyright notice before 1978. This picture is a faithful 2D representation of that sign. Is this within scope? Probably not, but I think it's closer than you'd think. The article this was deleted from was likely not notable, but I also think speedy deletion was a bit overzealous. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
No longer needed Add925 (talk) 18:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, unclear what the uploader "needed" it for, but it's looks like a copyvio of https://mercercountyoutlook.net/2024/01/14/a-look-backcelinas-very-own-pizza-by-donisi/, the date of that URL being a day before the upload. Belbury (talk) 18:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Images are all credited to "unknown author" on Findagrave, a website whose support page says Photos on Find a Grave are submitted by contributors. Contact the contributor directly to request permission to use the photo. No suggestion that such permission has been sought or obtained.
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 30.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 27.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 21.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 20.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 19.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 17.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 16.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 14.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 12.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 13.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 11.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 06.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 10.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 08.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 02.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 05.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 01.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 48.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 31.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 47.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 46.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 45.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 44.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 43.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 42.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 41.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 40.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 39.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 38.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 37.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 36.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 35.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 34.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 33.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 32.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 29.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 28.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 26.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 25.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 24.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 23.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 22.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 18.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 15.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 09.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 07.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 04.jpg
- File:Wilsonmonumentdupe9zk 03.jpg
Belbury (talk) 18:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I can't find the exact source of the background image, but looking at uploader's copyright record I think that this could be a stock background image. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - contributions} 20:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not in use, not educationally useful -- Adds nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, outstandingly poor quality. Taken in infringement to the venue's policy regarding filming and photographing live performances. Webfil (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Same as the others. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Indeed. Laddo (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Very poor quality, the photograph does not depict anything useful Zwiadowca 21 12:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Necesita permiso 186.174.60.245 01:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo uploaded to the Commons, when it should have been uploaded locally to Wikipedia under a fair use license instead. There is no indiciation given why the uploaded personally owns the copright of this logo, or has permission to release it to public domain.. Flibirigit (talk) 01:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Too simple to be copyrighted. --Bedivere (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Facebook 186.174.60.245 01:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: unlikely own work. --Bedivere (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Possible copyvio and dubious claim of own work. Seems to come from [5] Seawolf35 (talk) 01:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Bedivere (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
i doubt the uploader is the creator and copyright holder. The Diocese was only created in 1994, so unlikely to be PD Old ( en:w:Roman Catholic Diocese of Escuintla) Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Bedivere (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Toy shoes are not utilitarian and can be copyrighted, although some of the shoes are below TOO for copyright, some of the others are original enough for protection under copyright law. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Bedivere (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files in Category:Hot Wheels models of trucks
[edit]Delete per COM:TOYS.
- File:A toy emergency service vehicle by Hot Wheels 01.jpg
- File:A toy emergency service vehicle by Hot Wheels 02.jpg
- File:A toy emergency service vehicle by Hot Wheels 03.jpg
- File:A toy emergency service vehicle by Hot Wheels 04.jpg
- File:Driving (14859275788).jpg
- File:Driving II (14859276018).jpg
- File:Hot Wheels - 1981 Jeep CJ-8 'Scrambler' (5960048021).jpg
- File:Hot wheels fire truck.jpg
- File:Hot Wheels truck (14844591166).jpg
- File:Hotwheels heavyweight truck.jpg
- File:Hotwheels volkswagen id buzz.jpg
- File:S089 Hummer Humvee - USA Police generic Armored Unit (2395725525).jpg
- File:S252 International Armored - USA generic Police SWAT (4113414322).jpg
- File:S321 Hummer H2 - USA El Segundo Police CA (blue) (5946864713).jpg
- File:S322 Hummer H2 - USA El Segundo Police CA (black) (5947419452).jpg
- File:Silverado Hot Wheels.JPG
- File:Toy "beach patrol" truck by Hot Wheels 01.jpg
- File:Toy "beach patrol" truck by Hot Wheels 02.jpg
- File:Toy "beach patrol" truck by Hot Wheels 03.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(5946864713).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(5947419452).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(5946864713).jpg){kind=link}
_(5947419452).jpg){kind=link}
- Delete per nom. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Except for those identified by Fma12 below.— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)- Scratch that, only utilitarian vehicles are excepted per COM:UA. These toys are not utilitarian. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I would make an exception for some models which are depictions of standard vehicles, according to Com:Toys -> "A toy model that is an exact replica of an automobile, airplane, train, or other useful article where no creative expression has been added to the existing design is not eligible for copyright protection in the United States".
- * File:Hotwheels volkswagen id buzz.jpg
- * File:Hot Wheels - 1981 Jeep CJ-8 'Scrambler' (5960048021).jpg
- * File:S321 Hummer H2 - USA El Segundo Police CA (blue) (5946864713).jpg
- * File:S322 Hummer H2 - USA El Segundo Police CA (black) (5947419452).jpg
- * File:Silverado Hot Wheels.JPG
- * File:Toy "beach patrol" truck by Hot Wheels 01.jpg
- * File:Toy "beach patrol" truck by Hot Wheels 02.jpg
- * File:Toy "beach patrol" truck by Hot Wheels 03.jpg
- So my vote is Keep for the photos indicated, the rest may be deleted.
Fma12 (talk) 14:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: Each Hot Wheels model that you've raced along the iconic orange track or placed on your desk has been crafted from scratch. While pictures and 3-D renderings of the real cars serve as crucial references, the ultimate design is entirely unique. Take, for instance, the Hot Wheels rendition of the 2018 Camaro SS – it's a distinctive creation, not a mere duplicate. - this is paraphrased information from this link, so hot wheels aren't an exact replica of their source material, even if they are based of real life cars.
- Grandmaster Huon (talk) 02:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging @Fma12 for a reply to the above. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 07:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Grandmaster Huon: HW has a lot of models which are merely created from their designers' imagination, it's a fact. But in the case of the models I mentioned above, can you see any distinctive, unique or subject of copyright detail in trucks such as the VW id buzz or this police truck? Speaking of HW models not nominated here, do you consider this Peugeot 505 is not an exact replica of the real life car? What distinctive or purely decorative element do you see on it? Well, I think you're generalising your p.o.v. about the Hot Wheels replica vehicles. Fma12 (talk) 10:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Well they are a lot more distorted to aid with depth perception as per this reddit post. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- The cars I mentioned are not distorted; on the contrary, I see them as pretty accurate models. On the other hand, you are citing reddit as a source, which is a forum based on opinions rather than facts. Fma12 (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- see this source as well. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- and this reliable source too. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- The monster truck style hot wheels have some creative modifications that are above TOO. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- and this reliable source too. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- see this source as well. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- The cars I mentioned are not distorted; on the contrary, I see them as pretty accurate models. On the other hand, you are citing reddit as a source, which is a forum based on opinions rather than facts. Fma12 (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Well they are a lot more distorted to aid with depth perception as per this reddit post. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Grandmaster Huon: HW has a lot of models which are merely created from their designers' imagination, it's a fact. But in the case of the models I mentioned above, can you see any distinctive, unique or subject of copyright detail in trucks such as the VW id buzz or this police truck? Speaking of HW models not nominated here, do you consider this Peugeot 505 is not an exact replica of the real life car? What distinctive or purely decorative element do you see on it? Well, I think you're generalising your p.o.v. about the Hot Wheels replica vehicles. Fma12 (talk) 10:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. While some designs may be close to the originals they were inspired from, I'm deleting them out of precaution. --Bedivere (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
The Biker figure has some creativity put into it, and it is nonutilitarian to boot, delete per COM:TOYS. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- If it has become problematic after 13 years delete away. After lengthy campaigns of bullying and harassment I no loner contribute to Wikipedia/media. 60.227.162.213 04:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Bedivere (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, Delete per COM:TOYS. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Pero todos juntos no se ven en detalle. DM. Keep. 186.174.92.30 13:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. I think de minimis applies as none of these is the main focus of the picture. --Bedivere (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope: plain text. Als je een artikel op Wikipedia wilt plaatsen, lees dan nl:Wikipedia:Snelcursus/Nieuw artikel. Omphalographer (talk) 04:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Bedivere (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
out of scope Bodhisattwa (talk) 04:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Bedivere (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Seems like it is copy-pasted from a website, doubt that it is their own work. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 05:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Bedivere (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE, poor quality image with no educational value. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 05:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Bedivere (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Bedivere (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Bedivere (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Outdated Devwiki333 (talk) 09:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: While the reason for nomination is not grounds for deletion, this is an unused logo of an apparently non notable enterprise, so out of scope. --Bedivere (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Luchoxtrab as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: G2 - Unused and implausible, or broken redirect. Thank you - Luchoxtrab (talk) 08:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC). Not a broken redirect. I allow a regular deletion request. Taivo (talk) 09:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Bedivere (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Doublon de File:TF1.svg JessydeVilly (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Superfluous with other files on Commons. 2A01:E0A:523:15D0:3881:28DC:6EEE:5BCD 16:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --Krd 13:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Luchoxtrab as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: G2 - Unused and implausible, or broken redirect. Thank you - Luchoxtrab (talk) 08:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC). Not a broken redirect. I allow a regular request. Taivo (talk) 09:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Bedivere (talk) 14:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Doublon de File:TF1.svg JessydeVilly (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: in use. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
nomination for deletion 86 Juegos (talk) 16:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep no valid reason for DR, doesn't exceed COM:TOO A09090091 (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Luchoxtrab as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: G2 - Unused and implausible, or broken redirect. Thank you - Luchoxtrab (talk) 08:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC). Not a broken redirect. I allow a regular request. Taivo (talk) 09:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Bedivere (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Luchoxtrab as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: G2 - Unused and implausible, or broken redirect. Thank you - Luchoxtrab (talk) 08:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC). Not a broken redirect. I allow a regular request. Taivo (talk) 09:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Bedivere (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Monaroboy5431 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Likely false authorship claims, missing metadata, user with previous copyvio problems, should be deleted per COM:PCP.
- File:Front of Huawei MatePad Pro (black panel).jpg - [6]
- File:Front of Huawei MatePad Pro (white panel).jpg
- File:Back of Huawei MatePad Pro (orange).jpg - [7]
- File:Meizu 16s front white panel.jpg
- File:Subaru B9 Tribeca in China.jpg – https://car.autohome.com.cn/clubphoto/1687/200/1466147.html#pvareaid=2042264 (direct link) with the watermark (bottom right) deliberately cropped out
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
0x0a (talk) 09:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Bedivere (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Can be copyvio but not speedy 186.173.4.132 10:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- The statement about rights at the source reads a bit strange (at least the automatic translation):
- "This media file is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s). If you still want to consult and/or use this media file, please contact the institution.
- The metadata is licensed with a creative commons zero license. You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.
- If you use this media file and / or the metadata, we would appreciate it if you copied the information from the Acknowledgements field as a source reference. When used in a publication, we would like to receive a copy for our library."
- So, it seems only the metadata are under CC-Zero, but not the image itself. In addition, photographer was "Anton Hardy (1941 - )", who still might be alive, but surely is not dead since 70 years, which would be required for the termination of copyright. --Túrelio (talk) 11:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- For I, keep it. CC-Zero is CC-Zero. 186.173.4.132 11:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per Túrelio. Anton Hardy at Wikidata. --Rosenzweig τ 17:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as copyvio. The page clearly states about this image: "Wij kunnen het Werk en/of het mediabestand omwille van auteursrechten of wettelijke restricties niet tonen. Als u het Werk wil gebruiken voor privé-, onderwijs of onderzoeksdoeleinden, neem dan contact op met: damsbeheerder@antwerpen.be" - translated: "We cannot show this work or media file, because of copyright or legal restrictions. If you want to use this work voor private, educational of research purposes, contact: damsbeheerder@antwerpen.be" - Jcb (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- The photo is a copy of https://anet.be/record/opaclhobj/tg:lhph:11568/N . It's a JPG-file with a lower resolution. There is also a TIF-file with a higher resolution on https://dams.antwerpen.be/asset/a2HhUORYFfdZdTxCWRDe7n5e/oXgZwWjangXueYGKVLzzgYJL. Only this TIF-file states the copyright you mentioned. So I thought there was no problem. Ouwejokke (talk) 23:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Bedivere (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope fictional flag map, only used in the user page of a globally locked account.
It was referred to previously as "seems to be intentionally humorous" in this 2013 deletion debate, where it was kept by @Fastily: (apparently for this reason?).
I fail to see humor in the fictional annexation of another country, this is without educational use unless a political movement is really going to campaign on that idea. Enyavar (talk) 11:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Bedivere (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Copyright violation, taken from club.panasonic.jp/app/asec/cam/1d1e/?day=2023-10-25. フランベ (talk) 11:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Bedivere (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Copyright violation, taken from sekigaku.net/sg/lecturer/291. フランベ (talk) 11:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Bedivere (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Source URL says that the painter Leonard John Fuller died 51 years ago, not 70+. Belbury (talk) 12:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Bedivere (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Potential copyright violation. Low resolution and lack of EXIF data. It seems to be a cropped photo from somewhere. S8321414 (talk) 12:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Bedivere (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Screenshot of iOS 17, not free ccby wallpaper, but copyright violation. メイド理世 (talk) 14:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The wallpaper in question is a simple color gradient well below the threshold of originality. Omphalographer (talk) 20:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Bedivere (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
copyright violation (COM:TOO Italy) from www.fastweb.it - FASTWEB S.p.A. Appartei (talk) 15:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Logo seems pretty simple to me and Italy has not protected much complex logos. --Bedivere (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused WMF project screenshots.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Bedivere (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused advertisement of company of questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Bedivere (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
poor quality Nrke (talk) 16:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep It can always be overwritten when we find the original and rescan it. It can also be straightened and reuploaded over this version. It is the only image we have of some of the people pictured. --RAN (talk) 18:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Bedivere (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by likely company rep, no use outside sandbox; out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Bedivere (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use and out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Bedivere (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use outside wikidata; out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Bedivere (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Faizking321 (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:SPAM, promotional company images with no use and out of scope; account may have changed hands in 6 years of inactivity hence upload history differences
Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Bedivere (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nahu kumar (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:SPAM, promo images uploaded by presumed company rep, no use and out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Bedivere (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
The reason I think is because this is a ai enhanced image and is not quite supported on the English wikipedia. KhantWiki (talk) 18:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Bedivere (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm nominating this picture for deletion since it has been AI enhanced. It produces the details that weren't present on the original photo of the individual before, which literally affects the originality and authenticity. So, I request to nominate this photo for deletion with a valid reason. Thank you. KhantWiki (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Why are you nominating it for deletion again? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: @Ikan Kekek I'm nominating it for deletion again because AI enhancement changes the original details, which compromises its authencity. It's important to preserve the originality of historical photos, and this version doesn't align with that standard. That's the reason for the deletion request. KhantWiki (talk) 11:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- It was already AI-enhanced when it was kept a few months ago. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek, even if it was AI-enhanced before, the current level of enhancement further distorts the original image. This undermines its originality and authenticity, which is why I believe it should be deleted. There's no concern if this photo is deleted because the original version is preserved and kept, the original picture should always be used in place of AI upscaled versions. See MOS:HOTLINK, "AI upscaling software should generally not be used to increase the resolution or quality of an old or low-resolution image. Original historical images should always be used in place of AI upscaled versions. If an AI-upscaled image is used in an article, this fact should be noted in its caption." Thanks. KhantWiki (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- It was already AI-enhanced when it was kept a few months ago. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: @Ikan Kekek I'm nominating it for deletion again because AI enhancement changes the original details, which compromises its authencity. It's important to preserve the originality of historical photos, and this version doesn't align with that standard. That's the reason for the deletion request. KhantWiki (talk) 11:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
The enhanced version of General Khin Nyunt is already uploaded by me and hence this file is low quality and shall be deleted since it's unneeded now and since the enhanced version that I uploaded is better. Thanks! KhantWiki (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, image is in use on English Wikipedia which prefers to use genuine historical photos over AI-enhanced versions that make guesses about what a person's face might have looked like up close. Belbury (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't know that AI-enhanced images are not allowed. Then You're free to delete or remove the Request for "nominated for deletion". Keep the original and maybe delete the AI-enhanced version which I will request nominate for deletion. Thank you for your help! KhantWiki (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- The other khin Nyunt picture is better I think and is more high-quality. KhantWiki (talk) 18:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- What other picture do you mean? If you're referring to File:Enhanced Portrait of General Khin Nyunt.jpg, you asked at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Enhanced Portrait of General Khin Nyunt.jpg for it to be deleted, and it has been. Belbury (talk) 18:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for asking. That enhanced portrait of Khin Nyunt is already deleted and requested by me to be deleted. Since it's already deleted, it's not problem. The one I uploaded recently now is just increased brightness and clarity instead of being AI Enhanced. Now there's no need to be requested since everything looks good now. I suggest ending the discussion now since everything looks great. KhantWiki (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- So you don't want this file to be deleted after all, okay. Belbury (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed, I don't want this file to be deleted, the AI-enhanced version has been deleted as intended. The recently uploaded one features only minor adjustments, with no AI enhancements. While there's no immediate need for deletion on the recently uploaded one, if the admin proceeds to delete it, I'll have to upload again which will be quite difficult. Thank you for your consideration. KhantWiki (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- So you don't want this file to be deleted after all, okay. Belbury (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for asking. That enhanced portrait of Khin Nyunt is already deleted and requested by me to be deleted. Since it's already deleted, it's not problem. The one I uploaded recently now is just increased brightness and clarity instead of being AI Enhanced. Now there's no need to be requested since everything looks good now. I suggest ending the discussion now since everything looks great. KhantWiki (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- What other picture do you mean? If you're referring to File:Enhanced Portrait of General Khin Nyunt.jpg, you asked at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Enhanced Portrait of General Khin Nyunt.jpg for it to be deleted, and it has been. Belbury (talk) 18:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Bedivere (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
A cropped and altered photo of File:Gen Htay Maung Gen Bo Mya Gen Khin Nyunt.jpg which has disputed license/ownership. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gen Htay Maung Gen Bo Mya Gen Khin Nyunt.jpg Ninja✮Strikers «☎» 15:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Joseangelrosa (talk · contribs)
[edit]Possible copvyio: The uploader is not the author, Suspicion of Elvis Boss' promotion, Out of scope: No educational value
CoffeeEngineer (talk) 18:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Bedivere (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
low effort very round and in accurate borders Flcnx (talk) 18:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Greetings, what exactly are you complaining about, and what rules does this file violate? Speak directly, please, more specifics are needed. Iktsokh (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Bedivere (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ricardoborlone (talk · contribs)
[edit]Possible copyvio: The uploader is not the author, as per metadata, F10, G10
- File:Eu baoto forte.jpg
- File:Batis perfil.jpg
- File:Batis show de lançamento álbum É tudo ou tudo.png
- File:Batis show 2015.png
- File:Batis em show 2015.png
- File:Batis em sítio.jpg
- File:Batis fábrica de cultura.jpg
- File:Batis e banda 2.jpg
- File:Batis e fãs.jpg
- File:Batis tocando guitarra pb.jpg
- File:Batis de amarelo com guitarra.jpg
- File:Batis e banda.jpg
- File:Batis cantando.jpg
- File:Batis.png
- File:BATIS ao vivo.png
- File:BATIS.jpg
CoffeeEngineer (talk) 18:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Bedivere (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
User wants to focus on carrier, hence applying for deletion شارق کشمیری (talk) 18:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- User Agrees. PROCEED WITH PERMINANT DELETION. Shaariq Kashmiri (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Bedivere (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Not in use, not educationally useful -- Adds nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, outstandingly poor quality. Taken in infringement to the venue's policy regarding filming and photographing live performances. Webfil (talk) 19:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Andy Dingley (talk) 19:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Aside from the legal issues, this one *is* at best in the "only acceptable in the absence of anything better" category (which is no longer the case) and it was pushing its luck on even that count. Ubcule (talk) 22:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - very, very bad quality. However, sliding scale because we don't have a "collection of images" of this subject. We have exactly one other photo, and zero other photos of this performer performing. I think there's a valid scope argument, but I hope someone comes up with something better soon because, yeah, it's not good... — Rhododendrites talk | 16:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Within scope. We have only one other image of the subject. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Kept: Picture could still get some use as per the last two reasonings. --Bedivere (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
No permission from subject being photographed. This is required in Quebec. See Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Canada The Haz talk 05:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- But wait, the rule states: "Exceptions include (i) a person of public interest," and photo subject is a media personality. That said, it's too dark; unless it can be lightened I don't see it being useful. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't know he was a public figure. Thanks for pointing that out. In that case, my original argument is not a case for deletion. However, I will leave the request open as I do agree with you that it's quite dark and probably not usable because of that.The Haz talk 14:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Brightness fixed- image now usable if a little noisy. Generally speaking, fairly- but not extremely- dark images like this *can* be recovered with some straightforward adjustment and IMHO should *not* be deleted. If the image is so dark that any shadow detail has been entirely crushed (i.e. does not exist in the first place) or compressed, or proves to be excessively noisy when the brightness is increased, that's different, but it doesn't apply here- some quick filtering solved the problem. Ubcule (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Removing deletion request. The Haz talk 15:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I've added it to his English and French wiki articles, as well. If someone has a problem with it, they can create their own deletion discussion, or raise it here if this is still open. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn Natuur12 (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Not in use, not educationally useful -- Adds nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, subpar quality (high loss due to JPEG compression, high amount of noise) Webfil (talk) 20:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep It's not a great photo, but it's passable for article use in its current form and- unlike many of this user's other images of people- not so bad that it falls to the level of "acceptable only in the absence of anything better" (or "unacceptably bad even *in* the absence of anything else", for that matter).
- Especially as there are only two other images in that category (that this one is somewhat different from) and those are video stills that, frankly, aren't all *that* great either.
- I don't see a problem with multiple distinctly-different images of a person, so long as there's not a glut.
- (Disclaimer; I'm not the original photographer, I only uploaded the version with improved levels and saturation)
- Ubcule (talk) 21:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Ubcule indeed, the stills are not great; the camera and the subject are constantly moving so it is nearly impossible to extract anything that does not have motion blur. However, I still think they are better on some levels, with way less artifacts and noise, and focus that's not on the background. Webfil (talk) 22:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Webfil: - Yes, but the point is that they're not *so* much better and the original upload *so* bad that the latter warrants deletion. As I said, it's not like there's a glut of images of this subject. Ubcule (talk) 22:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Ubcule indeed, the stills are not great; the camera and the subject are constantly moving so it is nearly impossible to extract anything that does not have motion blur. However, I still think they are better on some levels, with way less artifacts and noise, and focus that's not on the background. Webfil (talk) 22:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep not so bad as to be out of scope, and we have very few images of this person — Rhododendrites talk | 20:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Usable image of notable subject. Definitely within scope. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Bedivere (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Non encyclopedic person. Not even mentioned within the article about her husband. No sources used, of course. Last question: Does the person want to be seen in commons? KlausHeide (talk) 21:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hallo Klaus Heide...ich bin der Enkel von Hector Tobar und würde gern den Eintrag unseres Großvaters vervollständigen.Die Bilder die Ich hochladen möchte sind alle aus Familienalben von uns.
- Grüße Lars Tobar Lars Tobar (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Bedivere (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
too bad quality Martin Sg. (talk) 22:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep. File is in use. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Bedivere (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Artist died 1972 (per en:w:Edward Tingatinga), not yet out of copyright Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete False 'own work' claim in the upload too. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Bedivere (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
copyrighted book covers 159.205.9.44 22:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Bedivere (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Not in use, not educationally useful -- Adds nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, somewhat poor quality. Taken in infringement to the venue's policy regarding filming and photographing live performances. Webfil (talk) 23:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Webfil: Regarding the "not educationally useful" on the basis of quality- I disagree. This is not a great image, but it's of more than usable quality and- again- we don't have a glut of better images of the subject, and not on stage like that.
- We don't normally delete regular images solely because they're "not in use" *unless*- as far as I'm aware- they're so bad/unusable that being "in use" would be the only thing otherwise saving them from being deleted.
- As I've said elsewhere, that certainly does apply to too many of Bull-Doser's uploads, but not this one.
- The image *might* still warrant deletion on the basis of the alleged violation of the venue's policy, but that's a completely separate basis that would apply regardless of the image's quality or usability.
- Ubcule (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Ubcule: On the one hand, regarding the usability ― fair enough, I've posted crap worse than this. On the other hand, ethics and good practice still dictate application of COM:PCP. I am trying hard to assume good faith on the uploader's part even if there are numerous second- and first-hand reports of his discutable manners in the community and in the media, but taking pictures when it's strictly forbidden (and audibly reminded to the audience) is a breach of contract covered by PCP. Therefore, I am not sure why "might" was emphasized in your comment. Can you please provide insight? Webfil (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Webfil: With regards to the alleged policy violation, I said "might" because my opinion was solely in response to the apparent suggestion that the image be deleted on the basis of its quality, and I didn't feel I'd considered the alleged policy violation (i.e. a completely orthogonal issue that the image quality should have no bearing on) sufficiently to commit an opinion either way on that aspect.
- If the image quality isn't sufficiently bad to warrant deletion in itself, it'd probably be clearer to not mention it at all and focus on the policy violation if that's the sole legitimate reason for deletion.
- Ubcule (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Ubcule: IUYC, you are suggesting I truncate the rationale to evacuate the quality issues. I agree to this idea. Webfil (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Webfil: - That's correct; if they are relevant to a deletion, they should be mentioned, but otherwise they're really just a distraction. Ubcule (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Ubcule: IUYC, you are suggesting I truncate the rationale to evacuate the quality issues. I agree to this idea. Webfil (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Ubcule: On the one hand, regarding the usability ― fair enough, I've posted crap worse than this. On the other hand, ethics and good practice still dictate application of COM:PCP. I am trying hard to assume good faith on the uploader's part even if there are numerous second- and first-hand reports of his discutable manners in the community and in the media, but taking pictures when it's strictly forbidden (and audibly reminded to the audience) is a breach of contract covered by PCP. Therefore, I am not sure why "might" was emphasized in your comment. Can you please provide insight? Webfil (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Not sufficiently low quality to be out of scope, especially since we only have low quality photos of this person. — Rhododendrites talk | 20:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per Rhododendrites. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Bedivere (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not in use, not educationally useful -- Adds nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, outstandingly poor quality. Taken in infringement to the venue's policy regarding filming and photographing live performances. Webfil (talk) 23:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Excellent arguments.Laddo (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Venue's policies have no bearing on Commons, and we have exactly two other photos of this person, not a "collection" -- and zero other photos showing this person performing/on stage. Poor photo, in part because it's extracted from an already low resolution photo, but in scope. — Rhododendrites talk | 20:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per Rhododendrites. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Bedivere (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Bedivere (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Aistė Kontvainytė (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused files. File:Atbulinis vožtuvas.jpg is from Internet, possibly other files also copyvio. File:Atbulinis voŽtuvas.jpg is without original source
- File:Atbulinis vožtuvas.jpg
- File:Voztuvas.jpg
- File:Atbulinis voŽtuvas.jpg
- File:Atbulinis voztuvas nuotekoms.png
Estopedist1 (talk) 08:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Bedivere (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Darthjipsu as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: want to sell it. Uploader's request is valid reason for deletion only during first week after upload. Here two weeks have passed. I allow a regular request. Taivo (talk) 09:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Bedivere (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Now this is a valid deletion request. The image is an infringement to palace designer's copyright, considering the U.A.E. not granting a complete Freedom of Panorama. See the following identical deletion requests Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:UAE Presidential Palace and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by E2568#Qasr al-Watan by User:E2568 (talk · contribs). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. Taivo (talk) 07:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: https://www.soutalomma.com/ عبدالله Abdallah (talk) 10:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Bedivere (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I created and uploaded this image in 2010. It was a better legible version of "Metal Genealogy.jpg". I didn't realise that the original image came from a documentary. I have no intention of copying the work of the documentary makers, or possibly violating any copyright. Therefore I would like my image to be deleted. Wimpi (talk) 10:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Bedivere (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of Scope: Fantasy flag map Enyavar (talk) 10:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Bedivere (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Personsl 186.173.4.132 10:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Bedivere (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Personal 186.173.4.132 10:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Bedivere (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I think Mehrnews.com no copyright. Don't speedy 186.173.4.132 11:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Bedivere (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
copyright violation; contemporary artworks; no freedom of panorama. Martin Sg. (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep There are hundreds of images depicting art exhibitions and contemporary art objects on Commons. This picture as well can be considered "no copyright violation". Even more important: A copyright violation can only be determined when art objects are 100% identified. On this picture the artworks are hidden behind visitors. In fact, there are no artworks in this picture that can be a subject of copyright violation. Lear 21 (talk) 10:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- The argument that "A copyright violation can only be determined when art objects are 100% identified" IMO is incorrect, at least for Wikimedia Commons, which is based on contributors demonstrating that media is PD or free licensed, rather than challenging others to "100%" prove it to be a copyright violation. See Commons:Project_scope/Precautionary_principle. By the way, the main image in the background is a monochrome enlarged reproduction of "Raft of the Medusa" by Théodore Géricault (d 1824) - public domain. I am voting to keep this image, but I wanted to be on record that is despite, not because of, the above claim. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The image seen in the background is a monochrome enlarged reproduction of "Raft of the Medusa" by Théodore Géricault (d 1824) - public domain. Anything else seen in the photo is de minimis. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
copyvio; contemp. artwork(s), no fop. Martin Sg. (talk) 12:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Martin Sg.: Did you read the previous listing? The visible artwork is from an artist who died in 1824, not "contemp. artwork". -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Explanation can be seen in the previous discussion. All the best Lear 21 (talk) 19:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Bedivere (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
A photograph of fr:Sylvie Rancourt. She's the one at the back, with a drink. Yet another remarkable photo from Bull-Doser! Andy Dingley (talk) 15:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment "She's the one at the back, with a drink".
- Honestly not sure if you're joking here, but I'm pretty sure (going by a GIS) that Rancourt *is* the woman at the front.
- I'm not saying that I can't see Bull-Doser uploading an image as awful and pointless as the woman with the cup- because, sadly, I can- but their modus operandi would be to crop the alleged subject to a 20x30 image of that barely-identifiable smudge. Ubcule (talk) 22:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm just repeating the comments from fr:WP. If she's at the back, the photo is useless. If she's the figure at the front, this is yet another of Bull-Doser shoving uninvited cameras under people's noses, and it should still go on that basis instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Ubcule, @Andy Dingley, when comparing this file to that picture from ActuaBD, a media specialized in graphic novels, and that picture from Babelio, a media specialized in literature, she is definetly the one in the foreground; same glasses, same hair color, same eyebrows, same chin. Sure it's not flattering, it's poorly framed, there are other people everywhere in the fore- and backgroung (and even a bird's eye view deep in someone's cleavage), it's taken in a hurry, it's blurry... but it's the only picture we have of the subject. Even though it's pretty bad, it's not unusable to the point that it's out of scope. I'd say Weak keep. Webfil (talk) 23:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Ubcule, @Andy Dingley, when comparing this file to that picture from ActuaBD, a media specialized in graphic novels, and that picture from Babelio, a media specialized in literature, she is definetly the one in the foreground; same glasses, same hair color, same eyebrows, same chin. Sure it's not flattering, it's poorly framed, there are other people everywhere in the fore- and backgroung (and even a bird's eye view deep in someone's cleavage), it's taken in a hurry, it's blurry... but it's the only picture we have of the subject. Even though it's pretty bad, it's not unusable to the point that it's out of scope. I'd say
- I'm just repeating the comments from fr:WP. If she's at the back, the photo is useless. If she's the figure at the front, this is yet another of Bull-Doser shoving uninvited cameras under people's noses, and it should still go on that basis instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- This request is pretty vague and ambiguous. I'd appreciate something clearer next time as we do not waste oure time here.
- So if it means that Sylvie Rancourt is not the person in the foreground, it is pretty obvious that indeed she is. I checked myself including Conseil de la culture de l’Abitibi-Témiscamingue and La Presse
- If the request means that the requester is "the one at the back, with a drink" and want it removed, let's say first that the person is barely (if any) recognizable because she is way overexposed and, ironically here, she has a glass covering her face. I admit that on the cropped version of the photo, it looks pretty strange. I nevertheless think the photo, even if it is quite poor, should be kept because it is the only one we have. If necessary, we can blur the person (I can do that. I am the one who already did the color correction). I also think that the cropped version is too tight framed and should be zoomed back, making less emphasis on the person in the background). Keep ZedPlusIxe (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep she's not at the back, with a drink. I'm starting to see a bunch of spurious nominations, sarcasm, and bad faith going after Bull-Doser at this point, which is making the VPU thread lose some credibility... — Rhododendrites talk | 16:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. What is this, a witch-hunt?. --Bedivere (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Complex logos can be in Commons only with VRT-permission. As the university was founded in 1991, the logo cannot be made before 1983. Taivo (talk) 13:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Obviously photoshopped promotional image (only uploaded for use on a now-deleted promotional user page on Wikipedia, w:en:User:TheKingAcademy). Outside of COM:SCOPE because it isn't a factual representation of its subject and because of its promotional nature. Marbletan (talk) 13:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
possible copyvio (c) Peter Kuehnl M2k~dewiki (talk) 14:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, no indication that uploader is photographer Peter Kühnl nor has gotten permission to free license from the photographer. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
possible copyvio (c) Peter Kuehnl M2k~dewiki (talk) 14:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
The license isn't "Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported" please check the source. It's copyrighted جميع الحقوق محفوظة © W7070 (talk) 14:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- So do I just reupload it with the correct license? Which do I select in the drop down? The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- It is copyrighted, there is no indication of any free license, so it does not belong on Commons. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
possible copyvio (c) Michael Poehn M2k~dewiki (talk) 16:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
The individual expression of thought required for protection is present because the photograph is given an individual character by the choice of framing. 178.197.232.248 22:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 20:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
It cannot be excluded that this is an art photograph despite the bad scan quality 178.197.225.189 19:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, the license seems correct. Taivo (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: as per User:Taivo. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Wrong licence, no obvious case: I disagree about the individuality of the picture. 178.197.226.251 11:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: speedy close: no new arguments. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Invalid PD template: no evidence for publication as it originated from a private photograph album. Photos kept in a private albut are a classic case of unpublished photos. Ankry (talk) 23:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Note: the 2017 DR was related to the {{PD-Switzerland-photo}} template which is no longer valid. So arguments provided there are irrelevant here. Ankry (talk) 23:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep At that time only professional photographers owned a camera, and the photographer giving it to someone else constituted publication. We already have had this discussion. Yann (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1993/1798_1798_1798/en#art_31 "1 Where the author of a work is unknown, protection for that work expires 70 years after it has been published..."
- even if it was unpublished, to whom does the protection of copyright belong to? author is anonymous, so the owner of the photo can publish it, right? in this case the uploader published it here on commons.
- (otherwise, if even the owner of an anonymous photo is not allowed to publish it, then the photo is locked forever?) RZuo (talk) 10:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per Yann. --Bedivere (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Haidar hamed (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons:What Commons is not#Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host. Too big collection for user page.
- File:EF85ABE.jpg
- File:43FC1D29-4A.jpg
- File:F0C4567.jpg
- File:Bugugguhu.jpg
- File:حيدر حامد ت.jpg
- File:حيدر حامد مخيلف haidar.jpg
- File:حيدر حامد h.jpg
- File:حيدر.jpg
- File:919ADD9Ahyy.jpg
- File:تتننFC55B9BE-9E28-4C56-9578-22524B9F188D.jpg
- File:حيدر حامد مخي.jpg
- File:حيدر حامد مخيلف.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Alaa :)..! 19:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Lee6597 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: CSD F8 (Can be replaced with the official design version. This version is an unofficial design.). This is not a reason for speedy deletion, so I create a regular request, which lasts a week. Taivo (talk) 09:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: orphaned and superseded. --✗plicit 06:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
copyvio, ne permission for the picture. Martin Sg. (talk) 13:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 06:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Duplicate of File:I-95 (NH 1957).svg. Yann (talk) 15:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 04:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Solijonovm1996 (talk · contribs)
[edit]No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Uzbekistan.
- File:HumoArena.jpg
- File:Bukaboks.jpg
- File:Mustaqillik.png
- File:Tash metro.jpg
- File:Gafur Gulam metro station.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ✗plicit 04:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
No FOP in Italy Structure seems a bit much to be de minimis. Seawolf35 (talk) 20:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. I've cropped the image so the sculpture is certainly de minimis now. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. for the first file version; Kept the second (cropped) file version. --Wdwd (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
La photo semble provenir d'IMDb Jacques Ballieu (talk) 00:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, found at IMDB. --Royalbroil 00:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
No personal 186.174.215.234 02:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: previously Speedy Deleted per F1. --Royalbroil 00:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Homebrew game may still be copyrighted, even though it may be freely distributed, see w:Cave Story. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Keep The reasoning behind this deletion request shows a total lack of research on the topic. Both Yuzu and Space Game (for the Switch) are released under open source licenses (GPL version 3 or later, and MIT respectively).
- The assets used in Space Game are embedded in the code, which is covered by the MIT license.
- The Yuzu logo found in the top left is public domain.
- This image is made up entirely of publicly licensed material, and was captured by myself and released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 4.0 International license.
- Unless you'd like to make the argument that the Win32 API is not under an open license, thus making all screenshots of Windows programs subject to deletion, this image should stay in Commons library, with the appropriate credit given to vgmoose, the creator of Space Game. As it has been, without incident, since 2018. Halotroop2288 (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- KeepThis was license under GPL-3.0-or-later. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.119.233.208 (talk) 03:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep It is a freely license open-source game and assets which there not copyright and the border is simple shape can’t be copyrights and not proprietary.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.48.119.67 (talk • contribs)
Kept: Yuzu is licensed GPL 3 [8] and Space Game is license MIT [9]. Uploaded on January 20, 2018 which grandfathers the image for GNU/GPL effective October 15, 2018. --Royalbroil 01:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Possible copvyio: The photos are all from Stefan Tschumi
- File:Sam Himself photo by Stefan Tschumi.jpg
- File:Sam Himself, photographed by Stefan Tschumi.jpg
- File:Sam Himself (photo by Stefan Tschumi).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 00:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Copyright 186.174.60.245 01:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: The uploader, @Flicksart: was likely also the photographer. They appear to have a connection to the event based on their contributions on enwiki, and a similar but not idential image was posted here. – Kjerish (talk) 07:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Crop of a deleted file. Better admins needed. 186.175.83.158 18:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Logos in Category:Singapore Chinese Girls' School
[edit]As a follow up of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Scgs.png, the logo and variations are copyrighted and may not meet pd-logo criteria.
Robertsky (talk) 04:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The uploader of the former (newer) file appears to represent the copyright owner; see COM:HD#Replacing Official Logo with updated one. They are likely in a position to verify permission through COM:VRT if necessary.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Until they verify permission through VRT, this should be treated as a potential copyright issue. Nonetheless if the permission is given, it is a step in getting more Singapore government owned assets to be released into the public domain early. Robertsky (talk) 11:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, no VRT progress. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by HoaangNguyen (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:SPAM, multiple promo images uploaded by presumed company rep, no usage and out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
how is this not a copyvio? Tehonk (talk) 07:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: DW by Flickr photographer. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Drawings by :pl:Jauhien Asnareuski, not own work Leokand (talk) 07:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Complex logos can be in Commons only with VRT-permission. Taivo (talk) 09:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. This seems to be below the threshold of originality in South Korea, which does not hold typefaces to be copyrightable. I am uncertain, however, if this company is notable. There don't seem to be any Wikipedia articles on the topic, but it is an automaker with some independent, reliable news coverage about it. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- In my opinion the black part of the logo is simple, but the blue part is not. It is not typeface. Yes, notability problem exists too. Taivo (talk) 08:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination & discussion; uncertain TOO, unused. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
No Meta data and small size photo make it doutfull it is the uploader work. Pierre cb (talk) 13:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- The reason it has no Meta data / small photo is because I screen grabbed and screenshot it from my own personal phone then downloaded it to my computer for upload. FSCWX (talk) 16:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per explanation, I couldn't find the image using reverse search. TheImaCow (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
No Meta data and small size photo make it doutfull it is the uploader work. Pierre cb (talk) 13:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- The reason it has no Meta data / small photo is because I screen grabbed and screenshot it from my own personal phone then downloaded it to my computer for upload. FSCWX (talk) 16:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per explanation, I couldn't find the image using reverse search. TheImaCow (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
why should this be licenced CC/GFDL? Magnus (talk) 15:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Presumably because the photographer so licensed it? Is there a reason to think User:N26825 was not the photographer? Have they been notified of this request? I see no notice on their talk page. I notice they have an email contact on their en:w page; image in fairly wide use in multiple projects, and IMO some effort to contact the original uploader seems in order when proposing deletion. - Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- The photo shows Friedkin filming "The Exorcist". The Commons-Picture is cropped and probably a screenshot from TV or a DVD, concerning the low quality.
- Full image e.g. here: https://cdn.britannica.com/38/176938-050-7B8E1DA5/William-Friedkin-filming-The-Exorcist.jpg (from https://www.britannica.com/biography/William-Friedkin). Magnus (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per Magnus; seen elsewhere online at better resolution. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
possible copyvio ©PeterAdamik M2k~dewiki (talk) 16:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, elsewhere online earlier, no indication uploader has authority to grant license. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
possible copyvio (c) ANDREAS WEGELIN M2k~dewiki (talk) 16:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Uploaded as own work in 2024 but (according to Google Lens) was available in 2023 at https://www.varta-guide.de/freizeit-guide/genussvoll-schlemmen/nachgefragt-bei-dennis-wiche. The external site confirms the EXIF data that the copyright is held by "Andreas Wegelin" instead of the uploader. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
File:Tsar Events is a company managing business travel, meetings and events for companies, governments and non-governmental organizations.tif
[edit]COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by likely company rep, no use and out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
The creator of the image, A. Tayfun Oner, is NOT a NASA employee. If you look at the source page, it says "This image is Copyright © 1997 by A. Tayfun Oner. Any commercial/for-profit use of this image needs to be addressed to Calvin J. Hamilton." Related: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Triton2.jpg. —holly {chat} 18:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: the uploader is not the author CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Uploaded as own work but with a claim that the subject was the photographer. Image is a crop of a file available on the subject's linkedIn social media page.[10] As our file has no EXIF and implausible author/uploader combination, it is almost certainly a copyvio. We would probably want evidence through COM:VRT to straighten this out. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination & discussion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Not in use, not educationally useful -- Adds nothing educationally distinct to the collections of images we already hold covering Julie Snyder, Patrice L'Écuyer and Guy Jodoin, outstandingly poor quality (out of focus, high loss due to JPEG compression, high amount of noise). Jean-François Baril's image is not remotely usable. Taken in infringement to the venue's policy regarding filming and photographing live performances. Webfil (talk) 22:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Andy Dingley (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete on basis of unusable- and hence unacceptable- quality alone. (Regardless of whether or not it would also warrant deletion on the basis of the alleged policy violation.)
- (Note; checking on the pages this image was still "in use" at also brought this interesting (and damning) issue to light.) Ubcule (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Poor quality. Not realistically useful. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination & discussion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
This logo is not too simple for copyright. See COM:TOO UK. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; artwork of tree over TOO UK. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Brief description of an organization. Outside of COM:SCOPE. Even if this text were to be needed anywhere on a Wikimedia project, it should be text on that project not a PDF on Commons. Marbletan (talk) 19:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom, CSD F10 - personal files likely applies too. TheImaCow (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Doubt on the author, as it is a photoshoot and a pseudonyme has been used CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete As copyvio. Uploaded here as own work in July 2023 but available online in June 2023.[11] I can't see any licence information on the site. We will need permission via COM:VRT to confirm the licence. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
N'doesn't seem to be free of rights Aréat (talk) 19:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, no confirmation of claimed license. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama for 2D artwork in Japan. Cjp24 (talk) 19:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- The photo is of a store sign installed in the outdoor parking lot and is not a 2D work. Therefore, this image does not violate FoP.ジョンドウ
- Keep. I've cropped the photo so that the copyrightable elements of the billboard are now de minimis. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Kept: cropped version; Deleted earlier version with COM:DW problem. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Copyright infringement (not author's own work as declared, but sourced from www.gold.org) IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 19:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Copyright infringement (not author's own work as declared, but sourced from www.gold.org) IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 19:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Not in use, not educationally useful -- Adds nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, outstandingly poor quality (very low resolution, high loss due to JPEG compression, high amount of noise) Webfil (talk) 20:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Bearing in mind that the quality (and viewpoint) means we can tell little about the subject beyond her being a blonde-haired white woman I'd consider this of unusable- and hence unacceptable- quality even in the absence of any other images.
- Something that, sadly, applies to a huge percentage of Bull-Doser's numerous uploads of Quebec celebrities.
- There's also the question of whether consent was obtained from the subject- something which Canada apparently has quite strong rules on- and I'd be surprised if that had been done for this paparazzi-style photo that was obviously taken from a distance, from behind, and without the subject's knowledge in the first place.
- (Something, again, that I suspect a large percentage of Bull-Doser's photos of people fall afoul of).
- Ubcule (talk) 22:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Ubcule A contrario of other pictures from this user that are more problematic regarding the lack of the subject's consent, I don't think consent is required in this particular case. Withenshaw is a person of public interest, a red carpet is a public event and the subject voluntarily submit herself to photo opportunities in that event; it seems to me that the criteria defined by the Supreme Court are met to evade consent requirement. Webfil (talk) 22:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Webfil: - Fair enough, I'm not an expert on Canadian privacy law and don't claim to be- which is why I didn't bother pushing that line in other cases- but I still agree with you that the image should be deleted on the basis of its poor quality alone. Ubcule (talk) 22:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Ubcule A contrario of other pictures from this user that are more problematic regarding the lack of the subject's consent, I don't think consent is required in this particular case. Withenshaw is a person of public interest, a red carpet is a public event and the subject voluntarily submit herself to photo opportunities in that event; it seems to me that the criteria defined by the Supreme Court are met to evade consent requirement. Webfil (talk) 22:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Bull-doser, and all the regular problems. We have others, so rarity isn't any justification. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Not realistically useful. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Not useful for Wikipedia Wizardofwords24 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizardofwords25 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination & discussion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of scope? Dark image of we don't really know what. According to the camera location it could depict a part of the electricity works in Birsfelden, of which we already have way better images Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete The lightning is bad and it’s not clear what is the object of the photo. Also it seems this page is not related to any article or used anywhere — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizardofwords25 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination & discussion; unused poor quality photo without evident compensating value. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Artist died in 1972; not yet out of copyright. Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Since I couldn't find out whether Daudi Tingatinga, for example, holds the rights, I have retracted the changes and the photos of my paintings may be deleted if you like… Teh Elle (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination & discussion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
File:Guy Jodoin, Patrice L'Écuyer et Jean-François Baril aux nominations de gala Artis 2015.jpg
[edit]
Not in use, not educationally useful -- Adds nothing educationally distinct to the collections of images we already hold covering Patrice L'Écuyer and Guy Jodoin, outstandingly poor quality (out of focus, high loss due to JPEG compression, high amount of noise). Jean-François Baril's image is not remotely usable. Taken in infringement to the venue's policy regarding filming and photographing live performances. Webfil (talk) 22:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Andy Dingley (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Poor quality. Not realistically useful. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination & discussion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
copyright violation; public domain in 2036; no freedom of panorama. Martin Sg. (talk) 22:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Drawings by :pl:Jauhien Asnareuski, not own work Leokand (talk) 07:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
There is an VRTS email received for “File:Е. Асноревский. Витовт сжигает Нойгартен.jpg” but not processed yet, ticket:2024022810010156. --Анастасия Львоваru/en 16:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Bitte die alte Version mit 16,03 Byte löschen, NICHT die aktuelle. Nohoe (talk) 20:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Nohoe: Gem. Exif-Daten "Fotograf: Ulrike Lukasczyk". Bist das du? --Rosenzweig τ 08:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ich wurde mit dem Upload vom Kantor der Kirche beauftragt. Nohoe (talk) 08:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Nohoe: Also Nein. In diesem Fall benötigen wir vom Urheber (hier: der Fotografin) bzw. einem Inhaber der vollständigen Nutzungsrechte (evtl. die Kirchengemeinde?) eine Genehmigung, dass wir das Foto hier unter der gewählten freien Lizenz verbreiten dürfen. Diese muss von der jeweiligen Person selbst per E-Mail (keine weitergeleiteten E-Mails) an Wikimedia Commons geschickt werden. Details, E-Mail-Adresse, zu verwendender Text siehe COM:VRT/de. Wenn wir diese Genehmigung nicht erhalten, wird die Datei komplett gelöscht werden. Das gilt ebenso für File:RossdorfOrgel1.jpg. Die erste Version dieser Datei habe ich jetzt wunschgemäß gelöscht. --Rosenzweig τ 08:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ich wurde mit dem Upload vom Kantor der Kirche beauftragt. Nohoe (talk) 08:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Delete unless we get a VRT permission (uploader is not the photographer). --Rosenzweig τ 08:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Heute wurde ein Freigabeantrag gestellt. Nohoe (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ticket:2024030210002961 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 11:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per ticket permission. --Krd 15:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
copyright violation; no permission by author of photos and text; no freedom of panorama. Martin Sg. (talk) 22:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- no copyright violation, non-literary text, no art, no Height of creation ("keine Schöpfungshöhe") Urfin7 (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
当該写真はフリーの 202.16.125.246 05:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, per previous. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
愛知大学東亜同文書院大学記念センターの 202.16.125.246 05:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: It's an work of the Government of the Republic of China in Guangzhou, thus Aichi University doesn't own the copyright of it. 源義信 (talk) 07:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, works of the government of the Republic of China are not eligible for copyright ©️ restrictions. A university cannot claim to own the copyrights of something that isn't copyrightable. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 02:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Bedivere (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
similr https://iotnews.jp/digital-transformation/242678 eien20 (talk) 06:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Elsewhere online earlier; no indication of permission. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Drawings by :pl:Jauhien Asnareuski, not own work Leokand (talk) 07:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Все файлы худ. работ Асноревского загружены на основании того, что он в своих соц. сетях писал о свободном распространении этих файлов. Но если коллеги решат удалить - нет проблем. Rutagor (talk) 07:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, no evidence of free license from artist provided. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Drawings by :pl:Jauhien Asnareuski, not own work Leokand (talk) 07:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Drawings by :pl:Jauhien Asnareuski, not own work Leokand (talk) 07:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
![07:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2024/02/29#c-Leokand-20240229072800-File:Карта_"Габрэйская_Гародня".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
![17:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2024/02/29#c-Infrogmation-20240504172000-File:Карта_"Габрэйская_Гародня".jpg){kind=link}
Drawings by :pl:Jauhien Asnareuski, not own work Leokand (talk) 07:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Drawings by :pl:Jauhien Asnareuski, not own work Leokand (talk) 07:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
![07:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2024/02/29#c-Leokand-20240229072900-File:Евгений_Асноревский._Постер_"DNA".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
![17:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2024/02/29#c-Infrogmation-20240504172000-File:Евгений_Асноревский._Постер_"DNA".jpg){kind=link}
Drawings by :pl:Jauhien Asnareuski, not own work Leokand (talk) 07:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Lee6597 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: CSD F8 (Can be replaced with the high-quality vector version). This is not a reason for speedy deletion, so I create a regular request, which lasts a week. Taivo (talk) 09:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete The JPG is not just an JPG version, it is an significantly worse quality version. (Which should have been PNG (non photographic work)). No issues with attrubution, as the work itself is PD anyway. TheImaCow (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Closed, file already Deleted and made into a redirect. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Bad quality dupe of File:ROKA 5th Infantry Division Insignia.svg, unused. Taylor 49 (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Luchoxtrab as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: G2 - Unused and implausible, or broken redirect. Thank you - Luchoxtrab (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC). Not broken. One week for discussion. Taivo (talk) 09:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Weak Delete - file was moved/redirect was created one day after upload. I don't see much value in deleting, but also not much value in keeping and now we're here. TheImaCow (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: implausible redirect, since it was moved after only one day. No reason to keep. No one see,s to have argued the opposite in this DR, so deleting this. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Luchoxtrab as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: G2 - Unused and implausible, or broken redirect. Thank you - Luchoxtrab (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC). Not broken redirect. I create a regular request. Taivo (talk) 09:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Weak Delete - file was moved/redirect was created one day after upload. I don't see much value in deleting, but also not much value in keeping and now we're here. TheImaCow (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: implausible redirect, since it was moved after only one day. No reason to keep. No one see,s to have argued the opposite in this DR, so deleting this. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Luchoxtrab as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: G2 - Unused and implausible, or broken redirect. Thank you - Luchoxtrab (talk) 14:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC). Not broken. I create a regular request. Taivo (talk) 09:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Weak Delete - file was moved/redirect was created one day after upload. I don't see much value in deleting, but also not much value in keeping and now we're here. TheImaCow (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: implausible redirect, since it was moved after only one day. No reason to keep. No one see,s to have argued the opposite in this DR, so deleting this. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Background image not published with a free license. Siyuwj (talk) 15:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - what exactly is the background image? {{PD-map}} would likely apply. TheImaCow (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: presumably a screenshot of a mapping service; the fully-free SVG replacement is better in every way. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Merci de la suppression du fichier suite à une mise à jour de la page Jre10120 (talk) 08:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Kept: we can keep historic photographs. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Forgery ?. The text written below the figure in the photo is not from the study, the text written in the study under this figure is: "Analysis results of the HVR-1 modern populations in relation to our ancient meta-population of 90 ancient Egyptians.", not "Fst genetic distance between ancient Egyptians and modern populations" in the author photo which alone means an autosomal Fst whereas the real text in the study specifies that it was Fst comparison on HVR-1 in mtDNA only
I also think that the file was uploaded under a wrong license. Chafique (talk) 18:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Kept: COM:INUSE, You can use a fact disputed tag if you want. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
